Comments:

1

DinaStrange

I am not quite sure if this is correct. This is a business arrangement and i doubt they are looking for emotional connection. As long as its treated as business transaction and it works for both parties, I see nothing wrong with it. Buyers/sellers = demand/supply.

Romney insulated from people and distasteful just because he has money, couldn’t be further from the truth. Did you not watch the debate last night? To even mention his name in an article about sugar daddys is distasteful on your part and pushing your political views in an aritcle that’s being read by people interested in relationship advice not a political forum. I’m “unliking” your page.
(@Elizabeth: I’m crushed – EMK)

Interesting article and not very surprising. The only surprising thing for me was that I actually felt sorry for some of the men in this article. From the writer’s comments, half appeared to be garden variety rich jerks but the other half were probably socially incompetent (at least when it comes to women) and looking for some sort of emotional connection in the wrong place.

Gone are the days of the stereotypical rich man abusing the poor, beautiful girl. I’m sure that still happens but not on these sites. Almost worse than the men are the women. For every sugar daddy taking advantage of his sugar baby, I’m certain there is an escort swindling her sponsor.

Even though the whole thing makes me sick, I can’t say I see anything really wrong with it in today’s terms. There was a thread on hookups earlier (which I resisted commenting on because my views are so wildly different from everyone else’s) and I’m not certain this is so different. It’s dirtier, kinkier, more outlandish and the stakes are higher but the way I see it, there is no moral difference. I’m probably going to get flamed for saying this but I’ll continue anyway. Hookups are presumably for the pleasure of both people involved. In this arrangement, one party gets money instead of pleasure. If both are okay with it, what’s the issue? The issue arises when one partner knowingly hurts the other (physically or emotionally) and really, that can happen in either situation. Higher possibility in the escort/sponsor situation perhaps…don’t really know, haven’t done the research.

Again, no judgement. Personally, I cannot handle either situation but if you can hookup with your emotional health as well as your partner’s intact, go for it. If you can participate in a sugar daddy/sugar baby arrangement and keep your moral compass pointing north, go for it.

I’d be curious to hear from Evan’s male readers. Would there be a difference for you between a girl who routinely slept with different men for her own pleasure versus if she was paid for it. I have a feeling that the answer will be yes but I’m not really sure why.

I wonder how it feels to be the recipient of “sugar daddy” treatment over the long term…and where does one find these sugar daddies anyway? A good man is hard to find…It must be that much harder to find a good sugar daddy…lol…

Male reader here. Liked the article but disagreed with her conclusion. These situations don’t have anything to do with emotional commitment. These guys are looking for certain kinks, jollies, and excitement, and they’ll pay top dollar for it. I’m sure they’d be happy to emotionally commit if the match was right. If I was filthy rich and lazy, I would almost certainly dabble in high end escorts. Why? Because it’s super difficult to get certain women (younger/sexy/kinky/beautiful) in dating, but perhaps a little easier if you pay for it.

So I got two things from the article. Sugar Daddies are generally super uncool. If they could fix that, it would be easier for them to pay for sex and probably easier to date normally, also. Secondly, women will at least entertain the idea of selling themselves for sex if the price is right ($1000s vs. $100) and if the guy is at least marginally cool. Huge gray area on both sides.

Well, first things first, Mitt Romney has been in a committed relationship for his entire adult life. I’m going to take a wild guess and say maybe his more analytic/business oriented personality is why he has trouble connecting with people prefer a touchy-feely engagement style.

Second, I wish Evan would write more on this topic bc I have dated two men who were rich and bought me for freedom but in a real world setting.

One loved to look in my eyes and tell me he loved me bc that’s how he got his rocks off. But I ALWAYS considered it a sincere relationship and it wasn’t until it dawned on me that his whole contribution was paying for things that I realized we were making a trade. Financial security for me, freedom for him.

The next time I attracted this same type of man, I understood very quickly it was the same type of deal but again, I thought we had both entered into with sincere relationship intentions. I remain friends with him and he dates only young women who work in bars. I am past the age where I could blindly hope the relationship would develop into a commitment but these women are young and having fun and probably are naive as well. It’s hard to turn down free travel, booze and anything else you may want when you have time on your side.

I guess my point is that the article was all about escort services but this type of thing happens in real life and the ‘arrangement’ is unspoken, but just as real. I would like to read more about that bc it’s an epidemic in my opinion.

I usually agree with you – but not always.
I do agree with your comment about Romney – it was funny, and a little jab about current events.
It’s your blog and I think it’s fair for you to say whatever you want.
It will be funny to watch a few people’s panties (or possibly briefs) get all bunched up over that and try to take this blog way off the reservation. I just sorta did
So yeah, about this Sugar Daddy thing – I tend to look at from an evolution standpoint. Think of the sugar daddy as the caveman with the biggest cave, the most buffalo meat, the biggest muscles, fastest runner. You get the point. They get the youngest, most beautiful ( read: most fertile) women.
It’s a part of being human, I guess. I read Sex at Dawn and it pissed me off, but I still liked it.

Evan, I’ve been reading your blog long enough that I know you’re intelligent. So this post baffles me. I also know you don’t mind getting mouthy and being rude to a potential customer so I’m sure your response to this will not be kind but I wonder if you really thought your Romney jab through before posting it. I, myself, am not a Romney supporter. However, you have managed to make some people uncomfortable, obviously. Not only that, but you have clearly distracted readers from the subject of your post. Neither of which seem condusive to trying to become rich, even if it is only a side dream.

a) I’m not rude to people who aren’t rude to me.
b) Did I think through my Romney jab? No, probably not. But I’ve made a career out of not carefully calculating what I should say in order to appeal to others. I’m not about to start now.
c) Did I make some people uncomfortable? It certainly seems so. Was that my intention? No. Was it the byproduct of me, speaking my mind in an unfiltered fashion? Yup. Probably shortsighted.
d) Did I distract readers from the subject of the post? Clearly. My bad. But only because the blog has been hijacked by people who are so easily offended by an off-handed one-liner as to ignore the gist of the post itself.

So while this is most definitely my “fault”, here is what I’ve learned:

a) People are way too thinskinned. I made the same joke that 1000 comedians have made: Romney is a rich, disconnected, robotic figure who has trouble connecting with regular people. Does his debate performance change that? Not a bit. Is this relevant to dating/relationships? Not a bit. Yes, even though I mentioned it in the original post.
b) Because people are way too thinskinned, I may be forced to think twice about posting anything remotely political. Which is kind of unfortunate for me. Because I’m pretty passionate about my belief that reality has a liberal bias. Sometimes, reality has a way of finding its way into my public musings.

What’s going to happen now?

a) If you’re really that surprised that a public figure would let his actual opinions seep thru on a public forum, get over it. This is my blog.
b) If you’re really that sensitive about being conservative that you can’t take a very light, commonplace joke about the public perception of Romney, you’re probably going to be extremely sensitive about other things. Good luck to your future partners who dare speak their minds and don’t toe the line for fear of offending.
c) If you’re really that offended that a guy who gives you free dating advice multiple times a week is (gasp!) an open liberal, in a world where no one dare speak his mind for fear of offending others for monetary purposes, then, by all means, stop reading this blog, unsubscribe from my newsletter and find a source of information whom you like and trust more.

I will completely understand. But my guess is that if you really want to understand men and make healthy relationship decisions, my occasional liberal rants will not dissuade you from purchasing my products. And if they do – if it’s so intolerable that I have a different political bent from you that you can’t even listen to me anymore – then you’re ultimately spiting yourself. You give up amazing advice because you don’t approve of the person giving it. Who loses in that situation? Certainly not me.

Back to our regular programming. No more comments about Romney or yours truly. Which means I’m deleting both positive and negative comments about me (and Romney) and attempting to get this thread back on track. My fault for not recognizing just how divisive a one-line comment could truly be.

As for the article on sugar daddies… I get the allure in theory, from both perspectives. But the reality of what the writer experienced just made me go, Ewwwwwwww. I wouldn’t say it brings out the best of anyone.

I think “sex and money” in the same context always makes both unsavory. I have to admit, if I were young and hot and needing money, this might have had appeal, as long as the sugar daddies were reasonable looking. I still get the heebie-jeebies when I think of the Sex and the City episode where you saw an old man’s *ss. Ick! LOL

Now that said, is this idea any different than when women would “spread their legs” (Fusee’s term that I really don’t like for some reason) for a “relationship” but not without one? Isn’t the “relationship” the currency rather than actual money? And how is trading sex for a relationship truly different than trading sex for money? Basically, the men in these sugar daddy relationships are saying “I’m substituting money for a relationship, you in?” — Or if you twist that perspective to a woman who requires a relationship before giving it up, the woman is saying, “I’ll only give you my body if you give me a relationship (or enough money).” Women are bargaining with the same sex chip, just the currency is up for debate.

Guess my point is that if a woman only gives up sex in a relationship, while it makes us sound/feel moral and good and just, the “relationship” is a currency the man has to give up…So whether we give up our bodies for a relationship or give it up for actual money…That’s just a matter of perspective. If you find one ok, then the other should be ok, too.

Moral of the story is the same one I’ve been preaching…Have sex because you want to and not for any other reason. If you don’t require a relationship then sex is just an activity, not a bargaining chip. If you require a relationship to be part of the bargain, well, that’s just another way of selling your body…And most women won’t want to look at it this way, because why? If women really eliminate sex as a bargaining chip, what do we really have intrinsically of value to bargain with for a man? Kind of an unsettling thought, isn’t it?

Perspective is everything…so if we twist the above once again, then what that means is that when it comes to men, a woman’s greatest power is her body. This is the power that men don’t have, so acknowledge that power and use it wisely (pun intended).

I have to add that some of these rich man are going through dating sites to offer you the world. In my case, I got few invitations to travel the world and even going shopping if I were to “date” these men. I totally ignored their emials because I was not there to look for sugar daddies but to look for love.

Personally I don’t understand the “sugar daddy” arrangement. I would feel used as the woman in this situation and the men have to know they are being used by these women. However, when it comes to things like this if they aren’t hurting anyone else and it works for them, so be it.

I think eventually people that have these types of arrangements realize that they lose out on the happiness and joy of real love. It makes me sad for them.

Now that said, is this idea any different than when women would “spread their legs” (Fusee’s term that I really don’t like for some reason) for a “relationship” but not without one? Isn’t the “relationship” the currency rather than actual money?

@Karmic12
Because, dear Karmic, relationship means an emotional and even spiritual connection, and sex is inextricably tied to that even when we pretend or don’t want it to be. If it wasn’t, we would be just as content satisfying ourselves instead of wanting it to be with another breathing human being and the words “spread their legs” might not make you uncomfortable.

I know you and I disagree about the fundamental tie between emotions and sex. You should think, ask yourself and feel exactly why Fusee’s term bothers you. Based on your past posts, I am surprised it does.

@ Maria #13, I was offered dinner once in return for pretending to be the guy’s girlfriend in front of his buddies. This was someone who’d initially emailed me on Match, but we ran into each other IRL later in a social group. He was 23 yrs older and seemed okay with the fact that he and I could never be a couple. Was nice and friendly, told me cool stories about his time in Vietnam etc. So when he emailed me that offer, I was shocked! Though, come to think of it, in our prior conversations, he kept bringing up his wealth, his two mansions, his investment accounts etc etc.

Another much older man on Match, I emailed back, and stupidly tried to warn him that, by contacting much younger women who list their cutoff age at 20 years below his, he opened himself up to the danger of meeting a golddigger. (I was new to online dating and naive enough to think he’d appreciate my feedback.) Boy was he livid. Again, come to think of it, he did make a point of listing his salary and highly-paid profession on his profile, and mention them again in his email. So maybe, both of these men were in fact looking to make a business transaction — to find someone much younger and good-looking that would agree to date them for their money.

Re the article, I kept wondering as I read it if there are written contracts involved, and whether the women have to declare this income on their taxes. How weird am I? lol

@ Karmic #12 — “Or if you twist that perspective to a woman who requires a relationship before giving it up, the woman is saying, “I’ll only give you my body if you give me a relationship (or enough money).” Women are bargaining with the same sex chip, just the currency is up for debate.”

I think you have a point. This is probably one of the reasons why I could never get into the mindset of “no sex before commitment”. Just considering saying it made me feel weird, like I’d be using sex, like you said, as a bargaining chip to get something I want from a guy (commitment). Then again, it doesn’t need to be worded in exactly that way. If a woman (or a man for that matter) says “I cannot do casual, because I’m the kind of person that gets very attached as a result of physical intimacy — so, to avoid extra heartbreak, before we do it, can we make sure we want to be in a committed relationship with each other?” Now this sounds completely different, totally understandable, and not like trading sex for goods at all. Assuming, of course, that the person really does feel this way and isn’t playing some kind of game with their date.

That’s your prerogative to equate the process of building slowly and wisely an emotional connection for life with using ones body as a bargaining chip for a relationship. This recent comment of yours illustrates once again our different worldviews and goals: in earlier posts you have explained how you favor passion and romance and I have related my intention to purposefully build a solid, healthy, and happy life-long relationship. We’re just not on the same page!

Now, I believe it to be extremely stupid of a woman to try using her body as a bargaining chip for a relationship. There is no way for such plan to end well. If she really wants to exploit her physical skills, I’d definitely recommend a financial deal with a clearly defined fee system. Much more empowering than manipulating an unwilling man into a commitment that could end at any time or worse lead to a very unhappy life.

Although obviously not my thing because of how special the joyful sharing of physical intimacy is to me, I can certainly understand how tempting it could be to the attractive woman who already enjoys random hook-ups with stranger to consider doing it for money with the best looking and wealthiest men out there. After all, why not adding some financial benefits to an already satisfying deal?

These are not “relationships”, they are business transactions, along the lines of prostitution. As David T (#15) wisely pointed out, a woman holding off on sex until a relationship is established is doing so not as a business transaction, but in order to protect herself emotionally, and give time to establish a real connection. Men and women in these “sugar daddy” relationships are not on equal footing, as the one with the money wields the most power.

Even if these women are young and pretty, their options are more limited. If they weren’t, they’d surely find some other way to support themselves. And the men in these situations are often cheating on their wives, or are unable to form a deeper connection. Money and sex are the only currency they are able to offer.

The idea of sex as currency is, firstly, complicated by the fact that women also want sex. Using it as a bargaining chip is therefore potentially also hurtful to themselves. It’s not a clear-cut transaction as you describe, as a part of the woman wants to give sex, particularly in the case of a man she wants a relationship with.

Secondly, your point about our bodies being our only leverage… If sex was the only item of value a woman brought to a relationship, that would indeed be sad. I will go out on a limb and say that in the best relationships, where the woman is loved and cherished, sex is almost the LEAST of the benefits she brings to a relationship. No man can adore you for your body alone. There has to be more holding him to the relationship.

I reject the idea of withholding sex as a bartering chip for a relationship. To me, that turns it into a power balance, which is I think entirely appropriate when the currency is money, as with these sugar daddies. To me, in a healthy loving relationship, it is more like a dance of back and forth, of which sex is one of the moves.

You can choose to feel objectified if a guy has sex with you and then doesn’t want a relationship, or you can choose not to go there because you can’t handle the emotional consequences (I can’t), or you can choose to see it as a beautiful engagement between two people, but you should not see it as currency, in my opinion.

I live in a neighbourd that overflows with lithe, diamond-clad wives and their banker husbands. The article linked above makes me feel uneasy but far less so than many of these marriages that surround me. At least there is a semblance of honesty in the sugar daddy/ sugar baby, escort/client relationships that I can’t be sure exists in the marriages between many of these bald, dismissive rich men and their passive-aggressive, shopoholic, social-climbing spouses.

For me, this articulated the ever present thought that most men only care about looks. Any of these socially clueless men could probably find an age appropriate, equally socially clueless woman with whom to form a relationship (except those who are already married). But they believe they should be able to have a woman much younger, much better looking than they are. These are the probably the same men who complain about shallow women because outside of this arrangement, they couldn’t get these women to be interested in them. I know, I know, Evan – neither sex has a corner or shallowness. I guess it doens’t give me much hope in men or women. However, if everyone is willing to play, then I, while personally wouldn’t have any interest in this arrangement, think to each their own.

Karmic – you seem to view people who wait for a commitment for sex are playing games. Don’t I have a personal responsibility to protect myself? Since I know I have to have an emotional connection with someone to even want to have sex with them, I am much more likely to be hurt aftering having sex with someone who isn’t interested in a relationship with me. If you and I differ in this respect, that should be ok. But you seem intent upon thinking of all people like me as playing games when really, we are hoping to weed out the people who play games before giving our hearts and/or bodies.

Evan,
In response to the topic of your post: I have a roommate who has a line of credit that was given to her by a middle-aged socially misfit guy, whom she dated for a while, and who is wealthy. He is happy to have her as a ‘friend’ and she is happy to spend his money.

When I wrote “have sex when you want to” — if you want to have sex only within a “relationship,” then do it when you’re in a relationship, I never said you couldn’t do that. But if you want to have sex, but don’t because the guy won’t give you a relationship/safety/emotional commitment first, then you’re using sex as a bargaining chip for the relationship/safety/emotional commitment. If you have sex “hoping” that it will lead to a relationship, then you’re using sex as a bargaining chip for the relationship. It’s an unspoken bargain. That’s why many are “hurt” when the bargain doesn’t come to pass. You made a bargain in your head. And the guy didn’t read your mind.

Fusee, I don’t disagree with you on the way you are husband-hunting. If a woman is looking for a husband, then I would totally advocate for your methodology. No disagreement whatsoever. Could I do it your way? Sure, I already have. It works. I was engaged in six weeks doing it your your way. No sex until relationship (4 weeks) leading to an engagement two weeks after that…leading to divorce 11 years later. My exhusband and I are still good friends. But sex was not a bargaining chip for the relationship nor for the engagement, it was a natural progression of the connection we had. I had sex when I wanted to, the relationship happened to have developed first, not because I required the relationship to be in place before the sex.

@Clare

“It’s not a clear-cut transaction as you describe, as a part of the woman wants to give sex, particularly in the case of a man she wants a relationship with.”

Yes, it is a clear-cut transaction, “…woman wants to give sex…[to the] man she wants to have a relationship with.” For sex NOT to be a bargaining chip, then If you want to have sex, have it whether or not there’s a relationship, but if you only have sex if the man promises you a relationship, then you are bartering sex for the relationship.

In blogs and books everywhere, written by MEN, they all say one thing VERY CLEARLY. Men are visual and they want sex more than they want love. If they get love, too, then great. But don’t kid yourself, most men would rather have sex with you than to have love with you. Love is the bonus, sex is the prize. This doesn’t mean men don’t want love. But given the option of love only or sex only, which do you think a guy would choose?

“To me, in a healthy loving relationship, it is more like a dance of back and forth, of which sex is one of the moves.”

That is wishful thinking. Sex is not “one of the moves” in a healthy relationship for a healthy man. Sex is a major part of the relationship for him. Without it he wouldn’t have a relationship with you.

******************

It sounds like I’m advocating all women to be sluts and sleep around. Nope. NOT. AT. ALL. I’m advocating that we women understand SEX is the highest currency we have in the battle of sexes with men. If you know this and really understand it and truly know how to leverage it in said battle of the sexes, you will never lose a battle. Men would be toast EVERY TIME you go to battle (i.e., date).

If you’re already using sex as a bargaining chip, it’s NOT A BAD THING. I’m just saying UNDERSTAND and ACKNOWLEDGE that is what you’re doing (and SHOULD DO) and drive the hardest bargain you can — Don’t waste YOUR currency on unworthy men.

Leverage your currency properly and you will have men lining up to offer you relationships. This doesn’t mean having sex with every man (or any man) who expresses interest in you, but rather understanding that all men who express interest in you want to have sex with you. What you do with that power and what you bargain for is up to you.

I’m going to take a different position and say that I am tolerant of the participants in a sugar daddy relationship, especially the women in the situation because I can obviously more relate to my own gender.

Things that I “like” about it: it’s honest. It’s different from Ashley Madison where people are purposely going behind their spouse’s back to cheat. The deal is pretty clear and upfront. It’s not like two people finding each other on Match and then stringing the other along to get as much out of the other person as possible. Likewise, it’s not like a committing to someone in a marriage and then leaving his/her partner when someone more appealing comes along, leaving his partner financially and emotionally ruined. The boundaries are very clear in this type of relationship and I find that to be a lot more ethical than people who lead others on or lie in order to get what they want. Still, I agree it’s distasteful with virtually no opportunity for growth, which is ultimately very sad.

After reading the article in response to “The End of Men,” it confirmed my suspicions about how much harder it is for a mother to not only get a job offer, but also get paid a living wage that is comparable to what men with her same education level make. I’ve been in the position of being a single mother and economically vulnerable. Unfortunately, our country (the U.S.) doesn’t do a great job at providing much of a safety net for people nor does it provide real job training assistance. I can imagine if a woman had a family member with a medical need — or even just needs period — how she might be tempted to have a “business” that she could manage on the weekends. If you live in a place like California, $5K a month really doesn’t qualify anyone as wealthy anyway.

I’d like to think if there were enough jobs and social support for vulnerable women (and, hey, socially retarded men, too!) that sugar daddy websites like these would fold for lack of customers. But what do I know? I’m a just a bleeding heart Big Bird fan.

Karmic Equation #25:“I’m advocating that we women understand SEX is the highest currency we have in the battle of sexes with men.”

Although I certainly respect your opinions, I really find concerning that you consider your sexual goods as a “currency”, never mind your “highest currency”, and project that belief onto the rest of us women. You mentioned a 11-year relationship/marriage… Do you truly think that your husband at the time bought your sexual favors with his vows? Do you truly think he was with you for 11 years because of the sex supply? I think you do not give enough credit to men’s savvy nature and to yourself for everything else you actually offer to those savvy men.

While, as you know, I consider physical intimacy special and choose to not engage in casual sexual relationships, I do not see it as a currency. As I wrote at 18, it anyway does not make any sense to use it as as a bargaining chip to “win” a relationship. A commitment can be broken at any point. It’s so elusive. If (generic) you wanted to use sex for business, good ol’ cash would be a way better investment with guaranteed returns.

Now, do not get me wrong. I get it. The prospect of enjoying the physical features of a woman is certainly what attracts a man. If you really want to use business vocabulary, it’s her marketing tool so to speak. Men are visual and gravitate towards the best looking woman he feels he has a chance to win over. But how she looks and her sexual enthusiasm will never be what makes a man choose to engage in a committed relationship with her once the seduction stage is over. She’s got to be able to offer much more!

Sure, my man finding me good-looking made him choose to approach me, but what made him progressively appreciate, respect, and love me is everything else. He now stills enjoys my good looks and my passionate nature, but believe me, he is not going through all the difficulties of growing a relationship with me just because I happen to be hot in bed. They’re plenty of other available good-looking women he could use for that.

And a final comment on how your labeling of my intention as “husband-hunting” is missing the point: I am not hunting for anything, certainly not a husband. If I had been, I’d be married by now! Seriously at 34, I have run into enough men interested in marrying me. Four exaclty, not counting my current wonderful boyfriend. One still emails twice a year to check if I have not changed my mind. So to clarify: I’m a happy single who will only consider a man of exceptional character for exploring the possibility of a life-long relationship. I favor singlehood to the sliding into a temporary arrangement, wich an undefined ongoing LTR is to me. That’s all.

As a wise ex-boyfriend once said to me, you cannot be having sex 24 hours a day. Whilst sex is a truly vital and wonderful part of a relationship, one which neither men or women would do without, a relationship is mostly the rest of the time.

If you think that a man will enter a committed relationship just to get a steady supply of regular sex, I posit that it is you who are being naive. There are easier and better ways to get this without all of the many “side effects” and obligations of relationship. There is no question that a man revels in the sex appeal of his girlfriend, but you better believe there are other things that are going to make him want to run to the shop in the middle of the night because she has period cramps and has a craving for chocolate.

Clare
Agree
ive seen men love their wives through post natal depression, cancer, the death of their children, even dementia. I doubt their sex lives were all that at the time, and maybe never would be again.
ive seen women love their husbands through redundancy, failed business , motor neurone disease. No monetary riches there.
for some, it may just be about sex and money. But even for those who believe that, it’s not ultimately satisfying. It’s down to values. sex and money don’t top my list. I don’t get over excited if they are important to other people. I doubt those other people would want to spend any time with me anyway!

I apologize that I wasn’t clear as you both seem to have misunderstood me. Once the bargain is made, sex is no longer a bargaining chip. I think it would have been clearer for me to have said that “First time sex” is the bargaining chip that women can use to get what they want from a man, relationship-wise. If money is involved, then sex is not a bargaining chip but a commodity…so I guess I just answered my own question on how bartering sex for a relationship is different than bartering sex for money. The former is a one-time transaction and the other can be an ongoing one.

Fusee, I’ve NEVER used sex as a bargaining chip for a relationship, and I thought my posts made it clear on that point. But YOU have, whether or not you would like to see it thus. If the man you’re dating isn’t what you need him to be as an LTR partner, you don’t have sex with him, but if he is, you do. You’re using sex to seal the contract rather than to bargain for it but the outcome is the same. You’re want/need to be in a relationship when you have sex. Contrast that to my I-don’t-care-if-I-ever-have-a-relationship-with-this-guy,-I-just-want-to-bang-him-now mentality…and I have sex with no guarantee of a relationship…and I ask you which of us is using sex as a bargaining tool for a relationship?

My exhusband and I stayed married and faithful to each other even though we lived the last two years of our marriage in celibacy. So, Clare, I’m not naive as I totally recognize that a steady supply of sex is not required for a relationship to continue. Just for the record, there were no health reasons for the celibacy and my exhubby and I are still friends to this day.

My point as I stated many times before is that as women, the giving of [first-time] sex is our super power. Acknowledge that and use that power/knowledge to your advantage. IF you are a woman that requires a relationship before sex, then make sure you have one before giving it up the first time (like Fusee)…because once you give it up, you lose your bargaining power. For men, sex after “first time” sex is just sex. “Just sex” they can get anywhere. “First time sex with you” they can only get from you–once.

I’m not a woman who needs a relationship before sex. I have sex whether or not there is or will be a relationship. I have sex because I like the guy PERIOD. I don’t use sex a bargaining chip, because I don’t need to use it that way. That doesn’t make it right or wrong, but it does mean I DON’T use sex a bargaining chip. There is nothing wrong if you do or don’t. But if you do it, do it right and make sure it is to YOUR advantage, not the guy’s.

I’ve been trying to label how I use sex…outside of a relationship…I would say I use it more like a prospecting tool. If I like a guy and I’m trying to figure out if I like him enough to have a relationship with him, sex helps me make that decision. Actually, making out helps me make that decision. If our make out session ends up in sex, that usually means I like him enough to work on a relationship, should one result, but I’m ok if one doesn’t. If I want to stop at the making out stage and am not fired up to have sex with him, then that tells me I don’t like him “that way” and I will make sure that we don’t have further interactions that lead him to think there could be relationship. That’s it. That’s how I use sex. For my purposes with no outcome attached to the sex. Just a tool to help me make a decision on whether or not he’s worth of my relationship skills.

Within a relationship, I use sex to bond…and sometimes just because he’s awesome and I want to show him awesome he is! And I never use sex as a reward or withhold sex as punishment. That sets a bad precedent.

@Karmic – I agree with a lot of what you say, but I think you’re twisting something. Holding out for a commitment before sex isn’t using it as a bargaining chip. Because that’s falsely assuming that a man will become your boyfriend just to get laid. Maybe in the ’50s, but not now. Sex is too accessible. So holding out for a commitment is not to make a guy commit; it’s to scare away any guy who has absolutely no intentions of committing. That way, she doesn’t sleep with a man who will break her heart. It’s a protection mechanism to weed out players; it’s not a bargaining chip.

” If the man you’re dating isn’t what you need him to be as an LTR partner, you don’t have sex with him, but if he is, you do.”

How could this be known within a short period of time dating someone? I think if “potentially” was added, that would be closer. Still, I would say 3-6 months is a telltale timeframe on if someone might be an LTR partner or not. If someone wants to wait that long to have sex, that’s their decision. Most people don’t–man or woman. Therefore, there are a lot of people having sex out there where the relationship doesn’t turn into LTR (most relationships don’t). A woman has to learn how to deal with this and put it in perspective.

Personally, I think the better answer lies in the woman and knowing herself, believing what she sees/hears, strengthening her boundaries and understanding her feminine power. Even if one sleeps with a man, that does not protect her from heartache–it’s just part of the deal of dating and being human.

Happy Clients

"I have met a man I can only describe as practically perfect."

Evan's info gave me the understanding that if a guy is interested in you, he will want to be with you, he will call when he says he will call, he will make sure he arranges time to spend with you.

Janis P.

"Dale and I have been together for two and a half years and will be married in 3 months."

You provide a reality check and remind me that everyone has doubts and there is no one "normal" response to love and commitment. I think your insight and perspective is incredibly accurate - you seem to understand the plight/perspective of the working, successful urban woman over 30.

Shelagh M.

“You opened my eyes to the fact that my boyfriend left because he didn’t love me unconditionally.”

I am in such a better place today because of your insights and inspirational guidance. I was so stuck on getting him back, but now I realize that I don’t want him back! I deserve someone who will love me unconditionally, no matter what.

Ana C.

"Thank you, Evan, for enlightening me, having faith in women, and being honest with what 'is'!!"

The result of giving up the search for “why” is losing the worry, the wringing of the hands, the wondering if he will call, and all the stress and sadness that goes with the worry.

Julie H.

"You truly changed my life, my outlook...and I am grateful!!"

John texts me crazy wonderful love texts to start and end every day. The roses are never from the grocery store...the Christmas presents were thoughtful and perfect. And I am wrapped in his wonderful love.